Merck said the "old one" Zostavax was safe and many people caught Shingles from the (expensive) vaccine they pushed. Careful with the new one also, since Merck obviously doesn't care about the reactions. BTW, I am a Merck stockholder and I wrote them (then) CEO (Richard Clark) a letter about the reactions - no answer!

Yes, Zostavax was not completely effective but sometimes it was the result of how it was given. Zostavax was a live vaccine and thus had to be stored at a specific temp in refrig. and then given when it reached a specific temp. It was also suppose to be given sub-Q. Many places did not give it correctly and of course, most patients didn't know the difference.

Shingrix, the new shingles vaccine, is not a live virus and has been shown to be much more effective.

Shringrix is not made by Merck, it is make by GSK, GlaxoSmithKline, a British pharmaceutical company.

Merck said the "old one" Zostavax was safe and many people caught Shingles from the (expensive) vaccine they pushed. Careful with the new one also, since Merck obviously doesn't care about the reactions. BTW, I am a Merck stockholder and I wrote them (then) CEO (Richard Clark) a letter about the reactions - no answer!

Re: Would you consider the shingles vaccine?

No, because I had shingles and it wasn't nearly as bad as depicted on TV. The rash itched more than hurt, so I scratched it. The worst part was muscle ache under the rash. The TV commercials fail to mention the muscle aches.

Incidentally, I got shingles while I was out of vitamin C for a week and waiting to receive a mail order. I had been taking 9 g./day in divided doses, since being a teenager. I strongly believe that it wasn't a coincidence.